"A Galileo could no more be elected president of the United States than he could be elected Pope of Rome. Both high posts are reserved for men favored by God with an extraordinary genius for swathing the bitter facts of life in bandages of self-illusion." ~ H.L. Mencken

Slavespeak, Part II

The design of Slavespeak is such that its words and terms detonate emotional bombs in the brain that function like controlled directional explosive charges. The use of them reflexively jumps the state of mind directly from a to b without the benefit of rational thought.

They are of the category “anti-concepts,” as Ayn Rand called them. Each word or term is an artificial, unnecessary, and rationally unusable term that is designed to replace and obliterate other legitimate concepts. The use of anti-concepts gives the user an emotional sense of approximate understanding, but the words and terms have no precise definitions.

Consider as examples the words Capitalism and Socialism. People can argue for days about these (political? social?) systems. Some may have precise definitions in mind, but there may be multiple “precise” yet very different definitions floating around for each word. Most people probably have no definite idea as to what they really mean when they use these particular words, but they are quite sure that one is good and the other is bad, because they are all, like, opposites and stuff.

But the very purpose of a definition is to distinguish one thing thus defined from all other things in existence, and so the defining characteristic of a word or term must always be the essential characteristic that distinguishes it from everything else.

Slavespeak introduces language that has no such precision and is in fact a “package-deal” conglomeration of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements that are separate from any fixed contexts. These “package-deal” conglomerations have defining characteristics that are not essential, but rather non-essential. In other words, they define nothing concrete. They do not define something that is distinct from all other things. They are fuzzy packages that elicit a range of fuzzy ideas designed to drive a particular strong emotion: A controlled directional charge. They are frauds whose function is to obscure understanding rather than to facilitate it, and they also serve to make it harder to grasp other, legitimate concepts that may be linked to them within an encompassing set of related ideas.

Every successful politician is quite adept at incorporating such vacuous weasel-talk into his inspirational rhetoric. Sprinkle in some patriotic, duty, flag, sacrifice, troops, defense, contribute, and the crowd gets goosebumps. Facts? What facts? Facts don’t matter. Just listen to all the little explosive charges going off in the audience’s heads like a Fourth of July finale! Standing ovation!

The use of one word can have vast and far-reaching consequences. … most Slavespeak words (like "government," "state," "constitution," "law," "king," "president," etc.) are such intellect-devastating, thought-destroying package-deals—that tend to trigger automatic meanings, images, associations, emotions, attitudes, and hypnotic, stupefying inhibitions—beneficial to terrocrats and harmful to their victims. ~Frederick Mann

Invoking Slavespeak words and phrases can indeed act like a trigger, effectively inducing a hypnotic stupor upon both speaker and listener. Rational thought flees before the shockwave of altered consciousness that rushes in and reflexively changes the state of mind, pushing it into predetermined channels.

But look: There is no President of the United States. There is no person who actually possesses the right to do what the person who calls himself “President” claims to possess. There is perhaps an egomaniacal guy in a suit who refers to himself by that title, imagining he has the superhuman power of legitimate external authority, and perhaps there are millions of others who go along with that delusion, but delusion it is nonetheless.

He's just a guy, and to the extent that he is able to convince people to commit aggression in his name, not a very good guy. You wouldn't like me if I did that.

And so why isn’t he simply called “emperor” instead of “president”? Ah, the Slavespeak word “emperor” has acquired too much negative baggage in order for this culture to accept an “emperor” as a legitimate source of authority, so now the correct Slavespeak word for one’s thug-master is “president.” The external authority’s label slides from one magic word to another, but the identical external authority premise remains intact: I would never accept an external authority who called himself “king” or “emperor,” my external authority must be called “president.” This is proudly cited as progress.

But if external authority creates a master/slave relationship, then how important, really, is the label borne by the master? Or by the slave? Sorry, I meant to say subject. I mean serf. Uhh, citizen. Gussy it up all you want, it’s the same thing over and over and over. Only the language shifts, and that seems to be enough to completely fool just about all the people just about all of the time. Truly amazing.

Clear Your Head

Thoughts and ideas originate in your brain and are, you would like to believe, intrinsically motivated. After all, there is no one else besides you in your head, right? These thoughts and ideas then drive your behaviors and actions. Language is supposedly only a tool for you to use to express your thoughts, actions, and observations, but at times—as has been noted in this essay—the individual can become subject to the influence of the controller of the language.

Language can be used like a Trojan horse to inject extrinsic motivations into individual brains so that the individual’s thoughts and ideas are not truly intrinsically motivated, even though the individual believes they are. So while an individual always attempts to act in ways designed to best serve his own interests, if an individual is guided by extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivation, then he is serving someone else’s needs at the expense of his own.

Slavespeak is indeed a type of language that generates thoughts, feelings, ideas, and ultimately, actions, and its devastating power lies in the fact that most people don’t realize they are using it—or more precisely stated—that it is using them.

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. ~ Steve Biko

Drop the self-hypnotic language and the world immediately begins to look different. Those who have been taking advantage of the power that this language held over you suddenly lose their magical specialness aura. They’re just regular ol’ folks like you and me. And when regular folks begin to act in an irrational, unethical manner, then you call ‘em on it. It’s time to start calling a thug a thug.

Welcome Back to Reality

An individual who extorts money in exchange for protection can be called a thug. Individuals who are the muscle behind the thugs can be called hoodlums. Nothing supernatural going on here, just an accurate description of people who behave in certain ways that everyone can understand.

What if everyone began referring to elected officials as “thugs” and policemen as “hoodlums” instead of “authorities”? Now we have removed the supernatural aspects from the equation and our terms accurately describe the actual human action being done by actual human beings. Just imagine if everyone was brought up using those words to describe these alleged “civil servants.”

Currently, it is not uncommon to hear something along the lines of, We need government to keep order in society, and the police are there to help support that effort. The Slavespeak in this sentence is sufficient to persuade the targets of this deceptive language to agree and to submit.

It really couldn’t be pulled off with, We need thugs to keep order in society, with the help of their hired hoodlums. Not quite as persuasive when realistic descriptors replace the deceptive language. No society of decent Slavespeak-free people is ever going to legitimize such a ridiculous proposition.

Purge the Slavespeak, Slavethoughts, Slaveideas, and Slaveactions from your life by rejecting the idea of legitimate external authority. Recognize your innate authority and take control and responsibility for your own life. See things as they are, not as they are portrayed through a language that is meant to deceive. The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.

The Bigger Picture

If you are at all alarmed at the detrimental effects this Slavespeak indoctrination wreaks upon the mental state of the individuals subject to it, then you have to really cringe at what it allows the controllers to inflict by way of physical damage—both to their own slaves and to the rest of the world—all facilitated through the slaves’ financial and moral support.

The widespread hierarchical master/slave model that is currently being implemented around the world is unethical, and what it produces is inefficient and violent. Since inefficiency breeds poverty and violence breeds war, this explains why the world has an oversupply of these unwanted commodities.

The first step in eliminating these scourges is to escape the trance that this mind-deadening language induces. Begin to call things by their right names. This may seem trivial at first, but it is in fact quite powerful and very empowering.

When more and more people begin to see the world as it really is and see the self-proclaimed authorities/masters for what they really are, then the support that these deceivers depend upon will begin to evaporate and the horrible side effects of this dysfunctional relationship--namely poverty and war--will dramatically decrease.

Everyone wants to end poverty and war, but they can’t see how to accomplish the mission. It seems utterly hopeless—a fool’s errand. But they are not seeing the world as it is, they are interpreting everything through the deceptive Slavespeak filter. Lose this distortion and the seemingly unsolvable big problems of the world suddenly don’t seem so impossible. But you have to take that first step yourself before you can help others do the same and ultimately begin the chain-reaction that must occur in order to actually significantly change the world for the better.

Now on the count of three, snap your fingers and wake yourself up.

War will end when a majority of men on this earth know that every man is free. Each person must see for himself that everyone is self-controlling and responsible. So long as any large group of persons, anywhere on this earth, believe the ancient superstition that some Authority is responsible for their welfare, they will set up some image of that Authority and try to obey it. And the result will be poverty and war. ~ Rose Wilder Lane

Comments

Each person must see for himself that everyone is self-controlling and responsible. ~ Rose Wilder Lane

Morpheus: Do you want to know what IT is? The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind.... Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.... Remember, all I'm offering is the truth, nothing more.... Follow me....

This is patently absurd. The fundamental law which defines the constitution is not modifiable by congress, agencies, administrators and the like.

Black's is contemporary practice, which is to say, it is slavespeak itself and the authority (if you like that term) of the constitution is 'the people'. More slavespeak? Perhaps, but at the very least, on its face, it is much more rigorous and protective of itself than lawyers and judges would have us believe if they practice to oppress and steal.

A better reading of the law (as established) can be found in Bouvier's (1914) and in the cases of the supreme court where it was taken seriously (apparently) for some time.

It is not a matter of faith or subservience to observe the law - if the law is rationally and reasonably conceived.

The point is not the imperfection or corruption but the core truth of it. Anarchy is theoretically even better, I'll concede, but it does not appear to have a chance among weakened, dependent people.

The law is not responsible (speaking of the fundamental law here) for the neglect and corruption committed against the people by their elected and unelected 'masters'. The law actually requires the people to avoid this in the first place and to remedy it when it occurs. Malfeasance is not a sound reason to abandon it.

Let's call the 'authorities' what they are - criminals (or hoodlums et al). The next step is not to ignore them and hope they will go away. They will not go away because there are and always will be sufficient support for them among the oppressed (see the Biko quote).

The thugs in the legislatures make a few rules mirroring actions people would naturally take anyway, of their own accord, if there were no such rules. On the basis of this provided "good" that they have supposedly provided, they create innumerable other laws to enslave us and make us host organisms for their parasitism.

Would you murder people wantonly without a law against murder? If not, then you are NOT observing the law against murder. You are merely being a decent human being, acting in your own perceived best interest as do all people. The law against murder is completely superfluous.

"The next step is not to ignore them and hope they will go away. They will not go away because there are and always will be sufficient support for them among the oppressed (see the Biko quote)."

You are letting the oppressed control your freedom. Yet another example of being slave to an external authority, except in this case the external authority is "what people think", AKA "horizontal enforcement". Anyway you are looking at the Biko quote incorrectly. He is not saying the weapon used against you is other peoples' minds. He is saying the weapon used against you is YOUR own mind.

That is obviously not the law to which I refer. That is more of what I referred to as contemporary practice. It has a relationship to law insofar as it a barrier to access to law (the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure does). Actually, rules are necessary for the conduct of hearings and trials. There is much more to discuss on this topic ...

Whether you choose to characterize your - not murdering - as observing the law or not, you are not violating the 'law' against murder. My choice of words "It is not a matter of faith or subservience to observe the law - if the law is rationally and reasonably conceived" is meant to convey the idea that an individual is not diminished or corrupted by limiting his or her actions to reasonable confines expressed as 'law'. I apologize for not fully explaining what this means in a brief comment.

Your reply leads me to believe that when your refer to law, that the law you mean includes all the work of congress et al that purports to be law, but much of that (those) body of work is really the administration of a system of oppression. We probably agree on that, if I may be permitted to guess.

Perhaps if everybody believed as we do (or, at least we seem to agree) that it is against our self interest to commit murder, then the law would be superfluous. So, you must be referring to an imaginary world, wherein, there are no murderous or unbalanced people who would murder capriciously or for profit or for any kind of reason that suits them.

Whether you believe it or not, the oppressed do control your freedom, inasmuch as they provide the support for the systematic, ubiquitous and all-but-unavoidable government of the states and the union of states together with the more petty but even more omnipresent little governments which populate your home with armies and officers. You've heard all this before and seen it yourself, unless you really live in a different world.

So, are you writing form Galt's Gulch? I have never built an airplane or a perpetual energy machine, but I'm sure I have some skills that would be useful there. Let me in!

I don't give a rat's ass what people think. But I do care enough about my life and my mind to navigate these waters. And I understood Biko completely - many years ago. Bastiat said it long before him, and I teach it whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Perhaps my tone is offensive. I'll think about that, but I only wanted to express this thought to anybody who is reading Tzo's (beautiful) piece:

It's a good idea to expose it for what it is. Put the sunglasses on and look at the aliens all around you ('They Live") but after that, what are you going to do? Wish them away?

"That is obviously not the law to which I refer. That is more of what I referred to as contemporary practice.... Your reply leads me to believe that when your refer to law, that the law you mean includes all the work of congress et al that purports to be law, but much of that (those) body of work is really the administration of a system of oppression."

If one can decide on his own what is "legitimate" law and what is not, then I see little difference with people such as myself who doubt whether any law is needed at all, because I simply come to the conclusion that none of them are legitimate. When I speak of law I am speaking of everything that is imposed on us by legislature, court and executive. In other words, the conventional usage of the term.

"Whether you choose to characterize your - not murdering - as observing the law or not, you are not violating the 'law' against murder."

Yeah, but how far can you go with that? Any time I refrain from doing something, I am not violating some law? Is that a sneaky suggestion that I am really "observing" the law?

"...an individual is not diminished or corrupted by limiting his or her actions to reasonable confines expressed as 'law'."

But that is (I believe) exactly the point tso is trying to make, which I agree with. One IS diminished by observing the law, by assuming the slave position in the master/slave relationship, by admitting to an external authority.

"So, you must be referring to an imaginary world, wherein, there are no murderous or unbalanced people who would murder capriciously or for profit or for any kind of reason that suits them."

No, I am referring to this world. There is a law against murder in this world, yet people murder anyway. The way to avoid being murdered is not to place one's faith in a law against murder, or in an authority that allegedly works to prevent it (which of course is nonsense). The best way is to refrain from giving people reasons to murder you, and to kill anyone who comes to murder you.

"Whether you believe it or not, the oppressed do control your freedom.... what are you going to do? Wish them away?"

No, they don't control my freedom, any more than a hurricane or earthquake controls my freedom. They are simply a force of nature like any other, that I naturally have to take into account, just like any animal ever born on this world must take into account the forces surrounding it. No one is ever a slave to a hurricane. Saying they control my freedom is just more slavespeak. It is also collectivist-speak, as if a mob had thought or volition.

By the way, you seem to imply with your Galt's Gulch comment that laws cannot be ignored. Actually they are extremely ignorable, with ill consequences being highly improbable - unless one is an idiot about it.

To a neophyte in this arena this makes a hell of a lot of solid sense to me. However, I have to place the challange to other STR members to show me how this propaganda is wearing on me. I once believed in the Consstitution and believed that if it were strictly followed all would be o.k. but as I look at it again I begin to see where it has become manipulated to mean whatever one would desire of it. It seems to be a very imperfect document, except in a few parts as the first amendment and especially the second which I would defend to the death.

Careful, Tzo. This is so good you might be getting inside my head... as a directional explosive charge. Perhaps as a verb, as in "Let us Tzo that political speech" or as a noun, as in "That STRticle made a whole lot of Tzo". You might even end up with an entry in the OED.

Isn't the precise definition of "due process" the same in every dictionary? Oh wait. I meant to ask; Are there two dictionaries anywhere that have the same definition for "due process"?
Ahhhhh... Semantic precision.

"If one can decide on his own what is "legitimate" law and what is not, then I see little difference with people such as myself who doubt whether any law is needed at all, because I simply come to the conclusion that none of them are legitimate. When I speak of law I am speaking of everything that is imposed on us by legislature, court and executive. In other words, the conventional usage of the term."

I did not say that 'one can decide on his own...'. although that would be very similar to your argument that there is no need for it. But when you say 'law', meaning 'everything that is imposed ...' that is something else. That is not necessarily law at all, as I said. That is a broader topic. This is a conflation of law and all that other 'stuff'. It may be the product of the legislature, and if your best authority is Black's Law Dictionary, perhaps it is an understandable error, but it is an error.

"But that is (I believe) exactly the point tso is trying to make, which I agree with. One IS diminished by observing the law, by assuming the slave position in the master/slave relationship, by admitting to an external authority."

Well, I understand the distinction, but there is no substantive difference. Should you decide that not violating the law is just unendurable, will you then kill someone to prove your point? You can't completely avoid the question. The fact that your conduct and that which is required by the 'law' are the same is a stalemate. You cannot have it both ways. If the law is always wrong and the law forbids murder, then you agree with the law. The law is a good thing if it prevents murder (according to your morality). So the law is a positive value to us (you and I both).

Next you say that the law doesn't prevent murder and that the best way to avoid being murdered is to kill anyone who comes to murder you. I agree that you should do whatever is necessary to prevent your own murder. But your argument the law is that it is not perfect. That is plainly fatuous. You are not perfect either and could not prevent your own murder in all circumstances. It's just a bald assertion.

"No, they don't control my freedom, any more than a hurricane or earthquake controls my freedom. They are simply a force of nature like any other, that I naturally have to take into account, just like any animal ever born on this world must take into account the forces surrounding it. No one is ever a slave to a hurricane. Saying they control my freedom is just more slavespeak. It is also collectivist-speak, as if a mob had thought or volition."

Well, if they have no effect on your movement (liberty), then you must live in a place where the police do not patrol the roads. You must not have been to an airport, and you haven't been into a courtroom lately. They also influence the goods available on the shelves of the stores where you buy your supplies and food. And if you listen to radio or watch television, there they are. Unless you live in isolation, they have many effects on your life. To deny it is kind of ridiculous.

As to ignoring the law: most people ignore 'laws' (traffic laws, tax laws etc.). It is a mistake to call it slavespeak to recognize that your contemporaries, however contemptuous you are of them, have no effect on your life. Just like hurricanes, they are part of your natural environment. By the way, those administrative 'laws' that you speak of are not easily enforceable so it is very likely that you can ignore them safely, but a real law, like the one against murder (this is actual law, not just legislative fiat). while possible to do, is much more likely to result in capture, trial, sentence and punishment. But you won't ignore that one, will you?